Rhyl verdict out

[David Lloyd]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:51 +0100:
>>
>>>
>>> A car shouldn't be on the road without road tax and insurance, but the
>>> absence of those does not make accidents more (or less) likely.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC uninsured drivers have an accident rate nine time higher than
>> insured drivers.
>
> That may be true and I'll take your word for it.
>
> It doesn't militate against what I wrote.

I thought he was insured, so we are getting OT with this point.

David Lloyd

 

[JNugent]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>A car shouldn't be on the road without a working horn, but its absence
>>does not make accidents more (or less) likely (unlikely far-fetched
>>scenarios notwithstanding - please don't bother with one). Tyres are
>>different, in that any defects can make an accident more likely - but
>>in the instant case, the experts who apparently know about these
>>things says that the tyres did not contribute to this accident.
>
>
> Strictly, not so. The /police/ said the tyres did not contribute. As far as
> I know, no expert witnesses were called with regard to the tyres.

But the police (or at least, a certain corps of traffic officers)
claim that they *are* the "experts". I make no comment on that.

> I admit I too am surprised by the confidence with which three bald tyres
> are dismissed.

It'd be interesting to know the exact condition of the tyres. "Bald"
(to me) suggests the complete absence of tread. I'm not saying I've
never seen such a thing on a road vehicle, but it's not common, and
was never all that common, even before the tyre tread laws came in
(which was only about 40 years ago).

 

[JNugent]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>>Simon Brooke wrote:

>>>Ace ('[email protected]') wrote:

>>>>You've clearly not understood the difference between driving
>>>>dangerously and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

>>>It is dangerous to drive a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition.

>>>>And you
>>>>also conveniently forget that the verdict agreed that the bald tyres
>>>>were not a factor in this case.

>>>Irrelevant. It was dangerous to drive on bald tyres, even if it did not
>>>contribute to this specific accident.

>>So as far as you are concerned, any C&U offence should have a
>>"dangerous driving" charge attached to it, irrespective of whether any
>>danger was caused?

> That isn't what I said. There are plenty of construction and use violations
> which present little or no danger to the public. Three bald tyres,
> however, present a very considerable danger.

Are you sure that the law on dangerous driving is capable of being
stretched so far?

 

[JNugent]

David Lloyd wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:51 +0100:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A car shouldn't be on the road without road tax and insurance, but the
>>>>absence of those does not make accidents more (or less) likely.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IIRC uninsured drivers have an accident rate nine time higher than
>>>insured drivers.

>>That may be true and I'll take your word for it.
>>It doesn't militate against what I wrote.

> I thought he was insured, so we are getting OT with this point.

Someone claimed that breach of a regulation meant that the driver (in
effect) "shouldn't have been there".

 

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what
>>> they did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive
>>> and I claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>>
>> He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted
>> here as "bald".
>>
>> does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?
>
> The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.


The only press report I've seen said:

"The inquest was told that at a court hearing last year three tyres on Mr
Harris's Toyota Corolla were found to be *defective* and he was fined £180,
although the court heard the tyres were not a factor in the accident."

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...objectid=19336942&siteid=50082-name_page.html

Can you reference your source for " *bald* " ?

pk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, p.k.
[email protected] says...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> JNugent wrote:
> >>> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what
> >>> they did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive
> >>> and I claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
> >>
> >> He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted
> >> here as "bald".
> >>
> >> does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?
> >
> > The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.
>
>
> The only press report I've seen said:
>
> "The inquest was told that at a court hearing last year three tyres on Mr
> Harris's Toyota Corolla were found to be *defective* and he was fined £180,
> although the court heard the tyres were not a factor in the accident."
>
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...objectid=19336942&siteid=50082-name_page.html
>
> Can you reference your source for " *bald* " ?
>
The coroner said "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were bald
or brand new" - that obviously doesn't refer specifically to the tyres
in question, but it might have put the notion of baldness into people's
minds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

 

[John Kane]

On Jul 1, 9:35 am, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
> >> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what they
> >> did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive and I
> >> claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>
> > He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted here as
> > "bald".
>
> > does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?
>
> The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

>From personal experience with lots of ice, tire condition on black ice
is pretty much immaterial. However if the ice was only patchy as
stated by the expert quoted above then the tire condition seems very
germane.

 

[p.k.]

p.k. wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what
>>>> they did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive
>>>> and I claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>>>
>>> He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted
>>> here as "bald".
>>>
>>> does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?
>>
>> The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.
>
>
> The only press report I've seen said:
>
> "The inquest was told that at a court hearing last year three tyres
> on Mr Harris's Toyota Corolla were found to be *defective* and he was
> fined £180, although the court heard the tyres were not a factor in
> the accident."
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...objectid=19336942&siteid=50082-name_page.html
>
> Can you reference your source for " *bald* " ?
>
> pk

I've since found:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=398901&in_page_id=1770


Which has:

However, when officers inspected his car they discovered three tyres - the
front pair and the rear nearside - were below the 1.6mm tread limit required
by law.

Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that although 'severely
defective' the bald tyres were not to blame for the smash.

'Tyre tread is there to displace liquid debris from the road to give a
better grip,' she said. 'In this situation, the examination has found there
was no liquid there - it was black ice, consequently the defective tyres
couldn't have been a contributory factor to the collision.'



pk

 

[Tony Raven]

John Kane wrote on 01/07/2007 16:47 +0100:
>
> Oh yes. It is wise to be on a good-sized lake before trying this.
>

A good session with a skid car will teach you a lot of what you need to
know to drive on ice. When you first start it seems impossible but with
practice it gets a lot easier. The last place to learn is with no
experience on an icy road. As they say inexperience is a hard teacher -
first you get the punishment and then the lesson.

> Also the conventional wisdom around here it that a skate blade
> actually melts the ice, it definately does not ride on the surface of
> the ice. You can drive a car on ice and leave no imprints. A skate
> leaves an incision in the ice. If you've ever watched a hockey game
> (ice that is) that is the reason for the ice machine after each
> period. It is removing shaved ice and filing in the small tracks from
> the skates.
>

Conventional wisdom is wrong. You don't need to melt the surface to cut
it (unless you think your knife melts the cheese to cut it). You can
also skate quite easily at temperatures of -30C at which no amount of
skate pressure will melt anything. At -40C the friction rises dramatically.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

p.k. wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
>>>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what
>>>>>they did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive
>>>>>and I claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>>>>
>>>>He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted
>>>>here as "bald".
>>>>
>>>>does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?
>>>
>>>The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.
>>
>>
>>The only press report I've seen said:
>>
>>"The inquest was told that at a court hearing last year three tyres
>>on Mr Harris's Toyota Corolla were found to be *defective* and he was
>>fined £180, although the court heard the tyres were not a factor in
>>the accident."
>>http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...objectid=19336942&siteid=50082-name_page.html
>>
>>Can you reference your source for " *bald* " ?
>>
>>pk
>
>
> I've since found:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=398901&in_page_id=1770
>
>
> Which has:
>
> However, when officers inspected his car they discovered three tyres - the
> front pair and the rear nearside - were below the 1.6mm tread limit required
> by law.
>
> Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that although 'severely
> defective' the bald tyres were not to blame for the smash.
>
> 'Tyre tread is there to displace liquid debris from the road to give a
> better grip,' she said. 'In this situation, the examination has found there
> was no liquid there - it was black ice, consequently the defective tyres
> couldn't have been a contributory factor to the collision.'

> pk

Ooh! You've 'ad it!

The witch-hunters won't like that.

 

[Ace]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:18:32 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>p.k. wrote:

>> However, when officers inspected his car they discovered three tyres - the
>> front pair and the rear nearside - were below the 1.6mm tread limit required
>> by law.
>>
>> Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that although 'severely
>> defective' the bald tyres were not to blame for the smash.
>>
>> 'Tyre tread is there to displace liquid debris from the road to give a
>> better grip,' she said. 'In this situation, the examination has found there
>> was no liquid there - it was black ice, consequently the defective tyres
>> couldn't have been a contributory factor to the collision.'

>Ooh! You've 'ad it!
>
>The witch-hunters won't like that.

They'll just ignore it, or more likely snip it and tell the world that
it said something completely different.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>John Kane wrote on 01/07/2007 16:47 +0100:
>>
>> Oh yes. It is wise to be on a good-sized lake before trying this.
>
>A good session with a skid car will teach you a lot of what you need to
>know to drive on ice.

With much less danger of finding out that the ice wasn't as thick
on the lake as you thought it was (though I'm guessing John was doing
it somewhere the ice is more reliable than the UK).